New Version - October 9th (10/9)

[matlajs]

AI's still seem to be overwhelmingly going for Freedom in base CP.

This is probably because you play on higher dificulties, where culture leading civ pick it up first and the others tend follow. Maybe because they are already influenced, maybe because they benefit from that most. I will lvl up on emperor now, but on the king, whatever i pick first, many civs follow.

 

[Moi Magnus]

This is probably because you play on higher dificulties, where culture leading civ pick it up first and the others tend follow. Maybe because they are already influenced, maybe because they benefit from that most. I will lvl up on emperor now, but on the king, whatever i pick first, many civs follow.

It was said in another thread that it was the case even if the player was the cultural and tech leader, and choose a non-freedom ideology. The AI still chose freedom.

 

[matlajs]

The AI still chose freedom

I have not seen a Freedom in previous 3 games.

But it is true, that it tends to end up with one world ideology, mostly order in my games. Even civs that could afford(culturally) diferent ideology. But i understand that. While it sounds stereotypically, it has many benefits. Happines, cold war solution( + cs embargo in), more voices in wc, , less diplo penalty,...............

 

[Moi Magnus]

I have not seen a Freedom in previous 3 games.

But it is true, that it tends to end up with one world ideology, mostly order in my games. Even civs that could afford(culturally) diferent ideology. But i understand that. While it sounds stereotypically, it has many benefits. Happines, cold war solution( + cs embargo in), more voices in wc, , less diplo penalty,...............

We are talking about CP only. The choice in VP seems ok.
(Note that I personnaly do not play CP-only, but I am just posting here infos found in other threads)

 

[BH5496]

We are talking about CP only. The choice in VP seems ok.
(Note that I personnaly do not play CP-only, but I am just posting here infos found in other threads)

At this rate, I'd almost prefer that AI preferred ideologies were brought back in BASE CP. It's just so annoying that nearly every civ, no matter the circumstance or temperament still goes for freedom. There legitimately is something wrong with their "grand strategy" calculations, especially if they use diverse Ideologies in VP and not base CP.

 

[Y.O.]

RIP Songhai culture. That was what made them my favorite civ...being able to push through Progress or Authority without agonizing slowness and reliance on great people. I know the prod they now get is not bad, but of course individual points of production are far far less valuable than the more-scarce culture. I was actually just checking the forum for updates before starting a game with them, but now that I see them gutted I don't have the heart to play at all. I can see the justification for the nerf (because it definitely is a huge nerf, not just an equivalent exchange) but they feel way less fun and interesting to me. Being able to have a decent policy acquisition rate early on (during the first policy tree) while going wide and without Tradition felt really great. Policies feel good.

I do like the Persia change. Golden Age points are individually worth very very little because of how quickly the costs of golden ages goes up, and tourism rate (not one-time boosts) is very hard to come by for a long long time so that aspect of their ability was very weak, almost irrelevant.

Still, I'm in mourning for the death of my favorite civ. A unique way to play the ancient era is gone.

I agree with you 100% RE: Songhai. However, I do think the change is an OK compromise in the grand scheme of things. I'm not rolling through culture like I'm used to, but the production has surely helped when it came to building units and buildings. Going industry with Songhai almost seems like a no brainer now, and adding diligence can certainly put things into overdrive when it comes to production. Honestly, I would suggest you try it out. I'm still having fun with Askia, and the production and gold focus just seems more clearer than before.

 

[Owlbebach]

Anyone has succeeded playing Tourism after the changes on higher difficulties? Tourism seems unwinnable right now. I think getting rid of the bonus "for having fewer cities" was a very good move overall, but Tourism need some love instead...

 

[Blue Ghost]

Re: the puppet v. annex debate: Calculations so far seem to assume that puppets are 60% as productive as annexed cities. Is that a fair assumption? In addition to the 40% Science/culture penalty, the inability to control builds or invest mean that puppets should be much less productive than that.

 

[Owlbebach]

Re: the puppet v. annex debate: Calculations so far seem to assume that puppets are 60% as productive as annexed cities. Is that a fair assumption? In addition to the 40% Science/culture penalty, the inability to control builds or invest mean that puppets should be much less productive than that.

It is, because you get penalty immediately after annexing, and after that you need to spend A LOT of resources for this city to become good. I was talking about "average" cities. Theoretically this means that a city that worth to be annexed should become much better than your average city in future.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

So, how much should the instant yields from GP bulbing be buffed in everyone's opinion?

 

[Owlbebach]

So, how much should the instant yields from GP bulbing be buffed in everyone's opinion?

I think that the right numbers should be tweaked so that overall it should be better to plant (create GW) long-term, but better to bulb in the lategame, but other options should be better under right circumstances (depending on strategy, i.e. better to create Great Work if you play Tourism). Otherwise i think Great Scientists were a bit overpowered lategame, 50r science is too much. Writers should give something like +7-8 turns towards next policy

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'd like to bring up the culture from trade routes issue again. In the Renaissance era, I'm getting +27(!) culture from trade routes to allied city-states. I'm a bit concerned that such high culture yields from trade routes to allied CS's are overshadowing all other uses of trade routes, like food/production and tourism. Science/culture from trade routes are supposed to be a catch-up mechanism, but any civ being able to get that amount of culture from an allied city-state hurts the catch-up value. Also, even when not playing a culture-oriented civ, I almost always find it very easy to become the culture leader (as compared to science, production or any other yield); I suspect that the culture from trade routes is playing a role in that.

 

[SLGray]

I thought influence during a trade route was based on the cities, not a standardized number.

 

[CrazyG]

I'd like to bring up the culture from trade routes issue again. In the Renaissance era, I'm getting +27(!) culture from trade routes to allied city-states. I'm a bit concerned that such high culture yields from trade routes to allied CS's are overshadowing all other uses of trade routes, like food/production and tourism. Science/culture from trade routes are supposed to be a catch-up mechanism, but any civ being able to get that amount of culture from an allied city-state hurts the catch-up value. Also, even when not playing a culture-oriented civ, I almost always find it very easy to become the culture leader (as compared to science, production or any other yield); I suspect that the culture from trade routes is playing a role in that.

I never even use the catchup mechanism, because I'd rather send my trade route to a CS rather than another civ. You only need one CS friend too, its not like its a big investment to get. In my current game I'm sending a single CS 4 trade routes from 4 different cities. It accounts for almost 1/3 of my culture

 

[Deadstarre]

I can confirm progress isnt getting the food/culture bonus per building when planting a pioneer. Given the extra turns it takes to produce a pioneer vs settler, and the amount of food / culture/tiles lost out on by missing the opportunity to build extremely cheap buildings like the shrine and council, its safe to say if you took progress a pioneer is quite literally a downgrade from the settler.

coincidentally, in the last 4 games I played every single one of the other 7 civs chose tradition or authority every single time. does the AI know progress is an option?

 

[Gazebo]

I can confirm progress isnt getting the food/culture bonus per building when planting a pioneer. Given the extra turns it takes to produce a pioneer vs settler, and the amount of food / culture/tiles lost out on by missing the opportunity to build extremely cheap buildings like the shrine and council, its safe to say if you took progress a pioneer is quite literally a downgrade from the settler.

coincidentally, in the last 4 games I played every single one of the other 7 civs chose tradition or authority every single time. does the AI know progress is an option?

It does not trigger, no - the loss of the cheap buildings + progress bonus is offset by the increased population and dozens of turns saved on building those early units.

G

 

[Deadstarre]

It does not trigger, no - the loss of the cheap buildings + progress bonus is offset by the increased population and dozens of turns saved on building those early units.

G

did you seriously just say a city starting at pop 3 vs pop 1 was supposed to be an offset? what exactly is the food bonus for making a single building in the pioneer era vs how much food is needed to take a city from pop 1 to pop 3? not to mention the loss of gold for missing the easiest pop gains possible? and "dozens" of turns to build what a pioneer starts with is a wild exaggeration, you build the hammer stuff first and the rest goes extremely quickly. not to mention any investments you make to those buildings youll save in not needing to buy tiles surrounding the city from the lumps of culture you'd have obtained, not to mention getting to the next policy. sorry, you're wrong.

 

[Gazebo]

did you seriously just say a city starting at pop 3 vs pop 1 was supposed to be an offset? what exactly is the food bonus for making a single building in the pioneer era vs how much food is needed to take a city from pop 1 to pop 3? not to mention the loss of gold for missing the easiest pop gains possible? and "dozens" of turns to build what a pioneer starts with is a wild exaggeration, you build the hammer stuff first and the rest goes extremely quickly. not to mention any investments you make to those buildings youll save in not needing to buy tiles surrounding the city from the lumps of culture you'd have obtained, not to mention getting to the next policy. sorry, you're wrong.

Even if you build 1 building per turn (unlikely), the pioneer gives you 10 free buildings. So I think shaving a dozen or so turns off is more than a fair assumption. Probably closer to 30 turns all-in-all (unless you are investing like crazy or using internal routes, both of which would eat into your gold bonus from progress).

G

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I see no problem with progress and pioneer, at that point of the game I'd rather have extra population and instant buildings instead of bonus from building cheap buildings.

 

[infidel88]

Anyone has succeeded playing Tourism after the changes on higher difficulties? Tourism seems unwinnable right now. I think getting rid of the bonus "for having fewer cities" was a very good move overall, but Tourism need some love instead...

I've tried. And despite focusing on it, building every single wonder, being 12+ techs ahead, creating GP almost every single turn, nuking Brazil with caravan tourism bombs, having 65+ pop capital, I didn't manage to get tourism victory. I got spaceship victory instead, simply because there was nothing else to build in cities, nothing else to research, so I started to make spaceship.